mjkvol wrote:Now Barnes and Bogut are 'major pieces'?
They played 20+ mpg on a historic team. They were major contributors in the context of that team, although I don't know why this is pertinent to the discussion. I brought them up because they obviously had the talent to play minutes on a great team.
mjkvol wrote:Do Draymond, Klay, or Iggy even sniff the HOF without Steph?
mjkvol wrote:Now Barnes and Bogut are 'major pieces'? Does Andrew Wiggins have his 'renaissance' without Steph?
Also don't really understand why this is important to the discussion at hand. I completely acknowledge Steph's greatness.
mjkvol wrote:Is it possible that Steph actually makes the players around him better while James doesn't, which might explain why so many who played with him remained scrubs and he needed to surround himself with other stars to win?
It's possible (that LeBron didn't make people around him better), but unlikely. It wasn't as if these players were "set free" when they left LeBron's clutches. They continued to remain scrubs. Also, are you going to give that same treatment to MJ or Kobe? Bulls were a first round and out type playoff team before Scottie. Kobe was in purgatory until they traded Kwame for Gasol. Both surrounded by mediocre teammates. Did they make their teammates worse?
Maybe having LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jordan create offense is better than deferring to Boobie Gibson, Smush Parker, and Charles Oakley to score points.
We got to watch Steph Curry play without a team full of stars for the first time (since before their mid-2010s run) last year and have to solely carry the team. Highest scoring output he's ever had. Lost in the play in game. Is that because he didn't make his teammates better?